Awesome! Can't wait to update my late 2016 MacBook Pro. /s
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Intel Announces Full Lineup of Kaby Lake Processors for iMac, MacBook Pro, and More
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Barely though. It does seem like we are very close to the top end of the silicone architecture though. It's been very minor speed increases for years now and not much in the way of improvements in multi threading and cores in general. At least that's what it seems like to me.
Remember how that original MacBook Air used to overheat so much it had to shut down a core? Remember how much criticism that original MacBook Air had gotten from people who couldn't believe a notebook that was missing such a critical feature as a SuperDrive (and had only one USB port) started at $1800? Remember how in October 2010 Steve Jobs introduced a 13" MacBook Pro with 2 year-old virtually obsolete Core 2 Duo chips when Windows competitors were adopting the original Core i5 and i7?
Steve Jobs should never had mentioned "working with Intel" to get that chip first for the MacBook Air. It was essentially a cut-down version of an existing chip and no one else used it, as I recall. Apple has almost always adopted chips later than the rest of the industry.
Bingo - and yet people will still make the "waiting for Kaby Lake" threads, completely failing to take note of other aspects of the MacBook which are more important.
Although the Pro's basically included the top end of every technology available at the moment. The only substantial upgrade they could implement would be the 32gb of ram, but we know they need a chip that'll support DDR4L to implement that and guess what...Kaby Lake still doesn't!
It's true they do spec-bumps slower than they used to. I don't think it matters though. The 7th generation Intel Core processors aren't that much better than the 6th, and the 6th aren't that much better than the 5th, and so on. Indeed, I think a Mac from 2012 with the 4th gen Intel Core processors will have everything 99% of people need today: USB3, 802.11AC wifi, very good battery life from lots of power optimizations, and fast PCIe SSDs. The improvements since then for nearly every computer have been sort of irrelevant.
So what's the rush?
Some Kaby Lake chips are nontrivially faster than their Skylake counterparts. See http://www.digitaltrends.com/processor-reviews/intel-core-i7-7700k-review/ (single-core 20% faster, multicore 20% faster)
But it remains to seen how much of the Kaby Lake line can make such claims.
But it remains to seen how much of the Kaby Lake line can make such claims.
But the performance improvements are barely noticeable. Kaby Lake exists because Intel's 10nm process is running behind, and they needed an excuse to deliver new chips this year so that OEMs can release "new" versions.
Obsolete? ... Expect updates in March for the MacBook Pro. You really think so?
And a better deal has always been buying a previous (discounted) model, so to speak. Nothing wrong with a great deal
KabyLake is mostly about GPU. Looking at benchmarks, pretty impressive for Integrated Graphics.
Still, no substitute for a dGPU if you want the power and performance.
Depends what the task is... A "windows PC" can seriously outclass the top of the range iMac in terms of graphics performance.
Edit: and cheaper too!
Last edited:
Apple is waiting until after they move into the new building. Then they are going to flood the product line with minor upgrades quarterly. This will make everyone's head spin.
This will be great for the 2019 Mac line up.
Ars Technica was not kind to the top end 7700 Kaby Lake in their review. But two things looked great:
If Apple doesn't come out with something soon, I think I'll be OK with the compromise of a Kaby Lake PC with room for tons of storage and enough PCI lanes to keep that storage solution fast (M.2 system drive, SSD scratch, large SSD media storage).
I am surprisingly OK with this. If Apple really support external GPUs and nVidia follows suit with driver support for the 1080/1070 line, I may have no need to stay on a PC. But I won't hold my breath.
- It overclocked to 5 Ghz without drama (fantastic!)
- Kaby Lake systems can have up to 40 PCI lanes (perfect for people who would benefit from a lower core count/high clock speed and multi-GPU setups, like 3d workstations with local GPU rendering)
If Apple doesn't come out with something soon, I think I'll be OK with the compromise of a Kaby Lake PC with room for tons of storage and enough PCI lanes to keep that storage solution fast (M.2 system drive, SSD scratch, large SSD media storage).
I am surprisingly OK with this. If Apple really support external GPUs and nVidia follows suit with driver support for the 1080/1070 line, I may have no need to stay on a PC. But I won't hold my breath.
If they come to the Macbook Pro in fall 2017 it might be time to upgrade. Hopefully by that time Apple will have worked out any battery issues and the USB-C peripheral support will be more widespread.
Unfortunately that's how Macrumors is, I plan on upgrading to the new Pro next month. It's a beautiful machine. I'm leaning towards the Touch Bar.
If you introduce a new product or change an existing design significantly, I think it is OK to not have the absolute latest chipset. It's better that the engineers focus on quality instead of pushing in something the last minute that will change all the planning.
But if the only thing you do is update the processor, it should be the latest. There can be no excuse.
But if the only thing you do is update the processor, it should be the latest. There can be no excuse.
Wouldn't it be hilarious if they updated it in March though?
YES! ... or: April 1st ;-)
Of the chips announced today, the 28-watt U-Series chips are appropriate for a future 13-inch MacBook Pro update, and we could see the 7267U/7287U/7567U used in 13-inch MacBook Pro machines this year.
This is confusing. Are you assuming a new 13" form factor which is different from today's 13" MBP?
Hard call. Apple always tries to flaunt the "battery life" on their macbooks. I would assume they will stick with 16GB for a while.